Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

This is a discussion that is best argued by theologians rather than atheists.

Some argue that the "till all be fulfilled" part of Matthew 5:18 occurred when Jesus died on the cross (fulfilling the law) and that this marked the beginning of the promised "New Covenant". Again, YMMV

I got it that all was fulfilled when Jesus ascended into heaven after the three days in the tomb (Luke 24:51).

Regardless, I'd say that you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a modern Christian who believes that the Old Testament law should still apply.

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

I've heard that rationale. Hell, I've probably used it. But I don't think you will hear many pastors embrace it. They would say that Jesus doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want.

No, of course not. Jesus also said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" indicating that Christians are still obliged to follow secular law. Of course, the Catholic doctrine of Canon Law kind of ruins this.

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

It's not a set of morals, it was a tactical command during a military action.

Rubbish! It’s a command from a supposedly moral and loving god that it’s okay to commit genocide including the killing of babies and children. All except the “lucky” young virgins that can be kept as sex slaves of course.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

People have always killed. Today this commandment is usually translated as "thou shalt not murder".

So what? People have also always raped, murdered, kept slaves, tortured, etc. What's you point (if you have one)?

What is the killing of babies and children if not murder? What is the ordering of the killing murder of babies and children if not immoral?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It's not morals. It's a narrative of a military campaign. When does a narrative of a military campaign turn into a moral diktat?

When a god that’s said to be “the source of all morals and love” instructs mere mortals that they have to kill babies and children and it's okay to do so.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

If you want the moral rules of Christianity, look to the Epistles, not to the Old Testament. There's plenty of questionable stuff in there for you to be going on with.

Morals can be given in instructions of actions that are “okay to do” as well as rules.

Just as well it’s merely a fictional book full of fantasy horror stories.

__________________Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Just as well it’s merely a fictional book full of fantasy horror stories, written by a bunch of itinerant goat-herders.

FTFY

__________________"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Randy Bryce, U.S. Army veteran

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

No, of course not. Jesus also said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" indicating that Christians are still obliged to follow secular law. Of course, the Catholic doctrine of Canon Law kind of ruins this.

That doesn't remotely address the subject. There are lots of God's laws that have nothing to do with secular laws. I see women every day wearing clothes commanded by their church. Those clothes don't violate secular law.

__________________Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

Rubbish! It’s a command from a supposedly moral and loving god that it’s okay to commit genocide including the killing of babies and children. All except the “lucky” except for young virgins that can be kept as sex slaves of course.

The only difference between the wars of conquest that are described in the early books of the Bible and literally every other war of conquest in history is that this one was recorded in a book that is still considered to be holy today.

Originally Posted by ynot

So what? People have also always raped, murdered, kept slaves, tortured, etc. What is the killing of babies and children if not murder? What is the ordering of the killing of babies and children if not immoral?

By today's standards, absolutely! At the time, it was just how war was done, and it happened literally everywhere. Take a look at the Romans some time. They believed that they had a divine mandate, too.

Originally Posted by ynot

When a god that’s said to be “the source of all morals and love” instructs mere mortals that they have to kill babies and children.

Again, do you have any evidence that modern Christians derive their morality from the narrative of ancient wars of conquest?

This is what I have been referring to as a **** argument. If there were anybody still deriving their morality from these narratives, you might have an argument. As it is, it's a strawman.

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

That doesn't remotely address the subject. There are lots of God's laws that have nothing to do with secular laws. I see women every day wearing clothes commanded by their church. Those clothes don't violate secular law.

Most of those rules about clothes aren't in the Bible. There are a few rules, like women keeping their hair covered in church, that are both in the bible and not followed by a majority of Christians. But most of what constitutes rules about how people should dress are drawn up by the churches, not derived from the Bible.

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

Most of those rules about clothes aren't in the Bible. There are a few rules, like women keeping their hair covered in church, that are both in the bible and not followed by a majority of Christians. But most of what constitutes rules about how people should dress are drawn up by the churches, not derived from the Bible.

That wasn't the point. The same goes for eating pork and shrimp or planting two different crops side by side. At least half the laws in the Bible are irrelevant to secular laws.

__________________Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

For me, it comes down to simple fact that it is a logical mess and is not believable.

Of course it is a logical mess. Whether you find it believable or not is still your choice.

Regardless, we still know that it is wrong to kill, rape, steal, have affairs with somebody else's lover etc. And if we are not psychopathic or solipsist, we know that we can't expect to be exempt from the standards we apply to others.

That much is in the bible. If you wan't to muddy it with OT quotes or unrelated POVs from NT authors then that is up to you.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Of course it is a logical mess. Whether you find it believable or not is still your choice.

Regardless, we still know that it is wrong to kill, rape, steal, have affairs with somebody else's lover etc. And if we are not psychopathic or solipsist, we know that we can't expect to be exempt from the standards we apply to others.

That much is in the bible. If you wan't to muddy it with OT quotes or unrelated POVs from NT authors then that is up to you.

Using quotes from the bible is muddying the waters?

Who da thunk it?

__________________Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

Point of order. The Bible does not dictate or command anyone today to do those things. Those were instructions given to a specific invading army at a specific time, and against a specific enemy tribe. It is not a general commandment.

This is what people mean when they say that people take certain Bible passages out of context. The books of Numbers and Judges are a (supposedly) historical narrative, telling a story about how the Israelites subdued their enemies. No-one is suggesting that the specific orders given to those military campaigns should apply in general.

And for additional context, at the time it was quite normal for an invading army to take slaves from the subdued population.

Are you unaware that religions that have the bible as part of their teachings often use quotes from the OT as well as the NT for the bases of their doctrines? This is especially true for religions such as the RCC because of where they state their authority comes from.

Arthwolipop I think you are basing your views of “modern” Christians on your personal experiences. As I’ve recounted a few times my lot couldn’t have been further from brimstone and hell views (well apart from what they thought about the RCC) but I learnt at a very young age that the “love thy neighbour and thy enemy and leave judgement to god” was the exception.

If you look at pretty much all the active, vigorous and growing Christian sects you will see that the “brimstone and hellfire” message is what is being communicated. An example churches in Uganda pushing for the constitution and law to be changed to make homosexuality a crime punished with the death sentence, all based on their interpretation of the bible.

Much like the argument for God can't be a totally passive "Well he doesn't do anything" the argument for the Bible can't be "Well nobody actually follows it."

If we just have to link this back to the base question (and this is a stretch) it about the broad need for positive arguments for something, not just negative arguments for why "Xi isn't..."

Much like God if you can't make arguments for the Bible, only excuses for it, that's saying something.

__________________- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

__________________- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

On the subject of child molestation. I can't see religion directly motivating the pedophile, but it seems obvious that many offenders are not "moved to great lengths" by their faith to desist.

Which is weird, because God is watching them do these vile things, and they are going to hell for them.

Originally Posted by Darat

Are you unaware that religions that have the bible as part of their teachings often use quotes from the OT as well as the NT for the bases of their doctrines? This is especially true for religions such as the RCC because of where they state their authority comes from.

Which is weird, because God is watching them do these vile things, and they are going to hell for them.

Donald Trump tweeted a Psalm today.

You do have to remember they belong to a religion that states we are all sinners and allows forgiveness of all sins. So yep they may know they are doing wrong, but they know all people sin, and they know they can be forgiven. I know from personal conversations that is an excuse some abusers give, that we are all bad and all we can do is give ourselves to God's mercy.

And embracing some quotes and ignoring others is called "cherry picking". If you are going to choose for yourself, why do you need God or the Bible?

I would also like an answer to this question, one I know I will never get.

If you have to use your judgement; be it your intellect, your upbringing, your moral compass, or reading tea leaves to go through the Bible and decide which morals to follow, which to ignore, and which ones to "interpret" then why not just use those same skills to just define and discover the morals directly?

__________________- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Are you really saying that modern christians are not bound by the ten commandments?

Why those commandments (and which ten because there are two sets) and none of the other ones in Numbers and Leviticus and Deuteronomy? Anyone who has read those books knows that there are rather a lot of laws there. Do modern Christians, even those who claim to follow the Ten Commandments, pay attention to any of them? Apart from the gay stuff, that is?

No. Because this is another example of cherry-picking and inconsistency. I can't say why modern Christians consider these ten to be special - I suspect it's more of a cultural artifact that has persisted through centuries, but that's speculation. In my church we were told that there was really only one commandment that mattered (John 15:12).

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

Arthwolipop I think you are basing your views of “modern” Christians on your personal experiences.

Of course! Where else do you expect me to base my experience?

Originally Posted by Darat

As I’ve recounted a few times my lot couldn’t have been further from brimstone and hell views (well apart from what they thought about the RCC) but I learnt at a very young age that the “love thy neighbour and thy enemy and leave judgement to god” was the exception.

As you base your views on your experience. The important thing is that we recognise that our experiences are different, because different churches are different, and we should therefore be extremely cautious about drawing broad generalisations.

The prevailing narrative on this forum is that religion is inherently, irredeemably evil, and the people who follow it do so because they are either themselves evil or simply stupid. I relate my experience to emphasise that Christianity is a spectrum - there is a really bad end and there's an end that maybe isn't quite that bad. But it doesn't help because religion and Christianity in particular is based on this horrible book, and even the Christians who seem nice have to be either evil or stupid to revere it.

Originally Posted by Darat

If you look at pretty much all the active, vigorous and growing Christian sects you will see that the “brimstone and hellfire” message is what is being communicated. An example churches in Uganda pushing for the constitution and law to be changed to make homosexuality a crime punished with the death sentence, all based on their interpretation of the bible.

Right, absolutely, but again we should be cautious about generalising that to the entirity of Christianity. Those spreading this form of Christianity in Uganda are part of a very specific Pentecostal set of churches, and they teach a form of Christianity that a majority of Christians (who are still mostly Catholic sorry Roman Catholic) do not subscribe to.

The fact that Fred Phelps protested military funerals should not damn all Christians. Pol Pot was a pretty horrible person, but we wouldn't want to be judging all atheists by that standard, would we?

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

I would also like an answer to this question, one I know I will never get.

If you have to use your judgement; be it your intellect, your upbringing, your moral compass, or reading tea leaves to go through the Bible and decide which morals to follow, which to ignore, and which ones to "interpret" then why not just use those same skills to just define and discover the morals directly?

I would also like an answer to this question, one I know I will never get.

If you have to use your judgement; be it your intellect, your upbringing, your moral compass, or reading tea leaves to go through the Bible and decide which morals to follow, which to ignore, and which ones to "interpret" then why not just use those same skills to just define and discover the morals directly?

What makes you think Christians don't already "interpret" the Bible according to their own judgement, intellect, upbringing, moral compass or tea leaves?

Every individual derives whatever moral teachings from the Bible that they are looking for in order to support their own biases. It's very flexible like that.

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.